AC-ism in history?
 

I’m trying to find the closest societies to AC-ism beliefs. What would that be?

For me AC-ism beliefs have much more in common with times of Wild West or times of industrial revolution than to modern societies.

I find it difficult to accept that living in such unregulated societies would be better or even more fair to the most population. I doubt a society where profits are put above the people would lead to any freedom at all since people would have only as much freedom / rights as they could afford it.

By putting profits above people and their rights AC-ism seems much more similar to corporatism than to a freedom society to me.

So, what could be examples of societies similar to AC-ism in history? Does this sound close enough: Large corporations working hand in hand with repressive regimes and employing private militias and militaries to violate people’s rights in Central America?

Re: AC-ism in history?
 

Paging Borodog...

I remember Boro mentioning various cultures that had ACist-esque structures. IIRC from them, Native Americans and the Celtics were mentioned.

Isn't Corporatism symbiosis between Corporation and government? ACism is lack of government, so working with a "Regime" doesn't quite fly. Also, such a situation doesn't disappear in any form of Statism.

Re: AC-ism in history?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I’m trying to find the closest societies to AC-ism beliefs. What would that be?

For me AC-ism beliefs have much more in common with times of Wild West or times of industrial revolution than to modern societies.

I find it difficult to accept that living in such unregulated societies would be better or even more fair to the most population. I doubt a society where profits are put above the people would lead to any freedom at all since people would have only as much freedom / rights as they could afford it.

By putting profits above people and their rights AC-ism seems much more similar to corporatism than to a freedom society to me.

So, what could be examples of societies similar to AC-ism in history? Does this sound close enough: Large corporations working hand in hand with repressive regimes and employing private militias and militaries to violate people’s rights in Central America?

[/ QUOTE ]

That's exactly it. All AC supporters are big fans of oppression and restricting peoples rights that's why they're behind it.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

Re: AC-ism in history?
 

Kowlon walled city was linked earlier. It is quite interesting, especially the bit about after the triads was weakened is the one which is closest.

clicky

I don't think it qualifies on all points, (since it held businesses illegal in the surrounding hong kong so I'd imagine it had a v/ profitable market compared to pure AC) and some government functions were delivered by Hong Kong (mail and stuff) but its an interesting read nonetheless.

Re: AC-ism in history?
 

I think the best case scenario was Medieval Ireland, although I think Somalia is more appropriate.

Re: AC-ism in history?
 

The answer is you. Did you need to use violence and coercion to get your job? To get your partner? When you bought your groceries? Your whole life is an AC society (well until April 17 at least). If violence is wrong in the personal and wrong in the abstract why does it become right in the foggy middle ground of government?

Re: AC-ism in history?
 

[ QUOTE ]
The answer is you. Did you need to use violence and coercion to get your job? To get your partner? When you bought your groceries? Your whole life is an AC society (well until April 17 at least). If violence is wrong in the personal and wrong in the abstract why does it become right in the foggy middle ground of government?

[/ QUOTE ]

I have never experienced this 'violence' you speak of - please elaborate.

Re: AC-ism in history?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The answer is you. Did you need to use violence and coercion to get your job? To get your partner? When you bought your groceries? Your whole life is an AC society (well until April 17 at least). If violence is wrong in the personal and wrong in the abstract why does it become right in the foggy middle ground of government?

[/ QUOTE ]

I have never experienced this 'violence' you speak of - please elaborate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Try not paying your taxes.

Re: AC-ism in history?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The answer is you. Did you need to use violence and coercion to get your job? To get your partner? When you bought your groceries? Your whole life is an AC society (well until April 17 at least). If violence is wrong in the personal and wrong in the abstract why does it become right in the foggy middle ground of government?

[/ QUOTE ]

I have never experienced this 'violence' you speak of - please elaborate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Try not paying your taxes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would I do that?

Re: AC-ism in history?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The answer is you. Did you need to use violence and coercion to get your job? To get your partner? When you bought your groceries? Your whole life is an AC society (well until April 17 at least). If violence is wrong in the personal and wrong in the abstract why does it become right in the foggy middle ground of government?

[/ QUOTE ]

I have never experienced this 'violence' you speak of - please elaborate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Try not paying your taxes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would I do that?

[/ QUOTE ]
You are paying protection money to the government so they do not use "violence" against you. If you stop paying, hello violence.

Re: AC-ism in history?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The answer is you. Did you need to use violence and coercion to get your job? To get your partner? When you bought your groceries? Your whole life is an AC society (well until April 17 at least). If violence is wrong in the personal and wrong in the abstract why does it become right in the foggy middle ground of government?

[/ QUOTE ]

I have never experienced this 'violence' you speak of - please elaborate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Try not paying your taxes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would I do that?

[/ QUOTE ]
You are paying protection money to the government so they do not use "violence" against you. If you stop paying, hello violence.

[/ QUOTE ]

If by protection, you are talking about the US military keeping me free, then I am happy to pay for that. Do you think I want to fight myself or pay someone to do it for me? Freedom is not free.

Re: AC-ism in history?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The answer is you. Did you need to use violence and coercion to get your job? To get your partner? When you bought your groceries? Your whole life is an AC society (well until April 17 at least). If violence is wrong in the personal and wrong in the abstract why does it become right in the foggy middle ground of government?

[/ QUOTE ]

I have never experienced this 'violence' you speak of - please elaborate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Try not paying your taxes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would I do that?

[/ QUOTE ]
You are paying protection money to the government so they do not use "violence" against you. If you stop paying, hello violence.

[/ QUOTE ]

If by protection, you are talking about the US military keeping me free, then I am happy to pay for that. Do you think I want to fight myself or pay someone to do it for me?

[/ QUOTE ]

No protection as in mafia protection money "wouldn't it be horrible if something nasty happened to you like having to go to jail."


[ QUOTE ]

Freedom is not free.

[/ QUOTE ]

Coercion is not freedom.

Re: AC-ism in history?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The answer is you. Did you need to use violence and coercion to get your job? To get your partner? When you bought your groceries? Your whole life is an AC society (well until April 17 at least). If violence is wrong in the personal and wrong in the abstract why does it become right in the foggy middle ground of government?

[/ QUOTE ]

I have never experienced this 'violence' you speak of - please elaborate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Try not paying your taxes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would I do that?

[/ QUOTE ]
You are paying protection money to the government so they do not use "violence" against you. If you stop paying, hello violence.

[/ QUOTE ]

If by protection, you are talking about the US military keeping me free, then I am happy to pay for that. Do you think I want to fight myself or pay someone to do it for me? Freedom is not free.

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.military-patches.com/deca.../dl-mx-159.jpg

I thought I'd heard that before.

Re: AC-ism in history?
 

[ QUOTE ]
The answer is you. Did you need to use violence and coercion to get your job? To get your partner? When you bought your groceries? Your whole life is an AC society (well until April 17 at least). If violence is wrong in the personal and wrong in the abstract why does it become right in the foggy middle ground of government?

[/ QUOTE ]

The funny thing is most of the people here will recognize the flaw in the Martingale system - any collection of wagers that are all individually -EV must produce an overall negative EV - but they'll happily apply that logic they know is flawed to questions of morallity.

Consider the idea of "Moral Value" (MV).

Everyone agrees that personal initiation of violence is -MV.

Yet many will agree that if you do it on a large enough scale to enough people, it somehow magically becomes +MV.

Everyone (well, almost everyone) agrees that conducting a voluntary transaction is +MV.

Yet many suddenly think that if you do "too many" of these individual +MV transactions, you're suddenly a -MV "windfall profiteer".

Re: AC-ism in history?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Freedom is not free.

[/ QUOTE ]
What would you do
If you were asked to give up your dreams for freedom
What would you do
If asked to make the ultimate sacrifice

Would you think about all them people
Who gave up everything they had
Would you think about all them war vets
And would you start to feel bad

Freedom isn't free
It costs folks like you and me
And if we don't all chip in
We'll never pay that bill

Freedom isn't free
No, there's a hefty f**kin' fee
And if you don't throw in your buck o' five
Who will?

What would you do
If someone told you to fight for freedom
Would you answer the call
Or run away like a little pussy
''cause the only reason that you're here
Is 'cause folks died for you in the past
So maybe now it's your turn
To die kicking some ass

Freedom isn't free
It costs folks like you and me
And if we don't all chip in
We'll never pay that bill

Freedom isn't free
Now there's a hefty f**kin' fee
And if you don't throw in your buck 'o five
Who will?

You don't throw in your buck 'o five
Who will?
Oooh buck 'o five
Freedom costs a buck 'o five

Re: AC-ism in history?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The answer is you. Did you need to use violence and coercion to get your job? To get your partner? When you bought your groceries? Your whole life is an AC society (well until April 17 at least). If violence is wrong in the personal and wrong in the abstract why does it become right in the foggy middle ground of government?

[/ QUOTE ]

I have never experienced this 'violence' you speak of - please elaborate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Try not paying your taxes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would I do that?

[/ QUOTE ]
You are paying protection money to the government so they do not use "violence" against you. If you stop paying, hello violence.

[/ QUOTE ]

If by protection, you are talking about the US military keeping me free, then I am happy to pay for that. Do you think I want to fight myself or pay someone to do it for me? Freedom is not free.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's swell that you've found something that you feel is a good deal and that you're happy to pay for.

What makes you think that everyone else should have to buy the same stuff you like?

Re: AC-ism in history?
 

[ QUOTE ]

By putting profits above people and their rights AC-ism seems

[/ QUOTE ]

ACism doesn't do this.

Re: AC-ism in history?
 

Find a "near AC society" in history, and you'll find a society that failed for the very reasons that the board "statists" have maintained are ACs weaknesses as a theory or as a practical possibility.

Re: AC-ism in history?
 

PVN,

[ QUOTE ]

Everyone agrees that personal initiation of violence is -MV.

[/ QUOTE ]

This certainly isn't true. e.g. http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0223/p09s01-coop.html

'The survey, conducted in December 2006 by the University of Maryland's prestigious Program on International Public Attitudes, shows that only 46 percent of Americans think that "bombing and other attacks intentionally aimed at civilians" are "never justified," while 24 percent believe these attacks are "often or sometimes justified."'

Take a more personal example. You're standing in a group of people talking on your mobile phone at a bus stop. A woman collapses clutching her chest, apparently having a heart attack. The people there ask you to use your mobile to phone for an ambulance. If you refuse then most people will agree that they're justified in taking it from you, violently if necessary.

Re: AC-ism in history?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Find a "near AC society" in history, and you'll find a society that failed for the very reasons that the board "statists" have maintained are ACs weaknesses as a theory or as a practical possibility.

[/ QUOTE ]

Strange, I can't recall the Western U.S. failing. Seems to be doing pretty well actually. I guess it would have failed if statism hadn't crept in and taken over.

Re: AC-ism in history?
 

I would really say an AC 'society' has failed if it becomes a state and there exists people like yourself who feels this is a tyrannic practice.

Re: AC-ism in history?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Find a "near AC society" in history, and you'll find a society that failed for the very reasons that the board "statists" have maintained are ACs weaknesses as a theory or as a practical possibility.

[/ QUOTE ]

Strange, I can't recall the Western U.S. failing. Seems to be doing pretty well actually. I guess it would have failed if statism hadn't crept in and taken over.

[/ QUOTE ]

ACism failed, if that wasn't clear from my comment I apologize. In the case of the Western US (if was ever really "near AC", I'll grant ou that) ACism failed because of the natural human predliction toward government. The Western states ASKED to become states. If AC were such a great thing, they would have stayed independent.

I've anticipated your response...I'm ready, whenever you are.

Re: AC-ism in history?
 

[ QUOTE ]

I would really say an AC 'society' has failed if it becomes a state and there exists people like yourself who feels this is a tyrannic practice.

[/ QUOTE ]

Saw this after my response. Strange that you understood what I meant by failing but Alex couldnt. I dont think the phrase starting with "and there exists" is necessary.

If there was ever an AC society and it is no longer AC, there is a reason for it that can be shown to be a practical or theoretical failing of AC itself.

Re: AC-ism in history?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Find a "near AC society" in history, and you'll find a society that failed for the very reasons that the board "statists" have maintained are ACs weaknesses as a theory or as a practical possibility.

[/ QUOTE ]

Strange, I can't recall the Western U.S. failing. Seems to be doing pretty well actually. I guess it would have failed if statism hadn't crept in and taken over.

[/ QUOTE ]

ACism failed, if that wasn't clear from my comment I apologize. In the case of the Western US (if was ever really "near AC", I'll grant ou that) ACism failed because of the natural human predliction toward government. The Western states ASKED to become states. If AC were such a great thing, they would have stayed independent.

I've anticipated your response...I'm ready, whenever you are.

[/ QUOTE ]

They asked to become states at a time when the federal government followed the Constitution and had practically zero interference in what states did. A time when we didn't go around invading random countries or have Social Security, Welfare, a War on Drugs or an Income Tax. They certainly made a mistake that they likely wouldn't make again with the same information. I wouldn't call making a mistake that future generations can learn from and not make again "failing" though.

Re: AC-ism in history?
 

[ QUOTE ]

I would really say an AC 'society' has failed if it becomes a state and there exists people like yourself who feels this is a tyrannic practice.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's certainly not how I would use the world "fail" because it doesn't say anything bad about ACism, just that people made some mistakes. Obviously the goal of history is to learn from it and not repeat the same mistakes. This doesn't make AC a "failure".

Re: AC-ism in history?
 

[ QUOTE ]
If there was ever an AC society and it is no longer AC, there is a reason for it that can be shown to be a practical or theoretical failing of AC itself.

[/ QUOTE ]

So if Hitler had conquered us in WWII, that would have been a failure of our form of government? Interesting theory, but I don't agree.

Re: AC-ism in history?
 

[ QUOTE ]
The Western states ASKED to become states. If AC were such a great thing, they would have stayed independent.

[/ QUOTE ]

1) Fallacy of aggregation. States don't ask. People do. And those people don't speak for everyone.

2) Appeal to status quo. This is sort of like an anthropomorphic fallacy. What we observe must be the "right" or "good" thing. JFK's assassination must have been good thing, because if his staying alive were such a great thing he would have stayed alive AMIRITE?

Re: AC-ism in history?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

By putting profits above people and their rights AC-ism seems

[/ QUOTE ]

ACism doesn't do this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you sure?

Re: AC-ism in history?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

By putting profits above people and their rights AC-ism seems

[/ QUOTE ]

ACism doesn't do this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you sure?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm certain.

Re: AC-ism in history?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If there was ever an AC society and it is no longer AC, there is a reason for it that can be shown to be a practical or theoretical failing of AC itself.

[/ QUOTE ]

So if Hitler had conquered us in WWII, that would have been a failure of our form of government? Interesting theory, but I don't agree.

[/ QUOTE ]

Also all those democracies that were overthrown by the US show that democracy is a failure and totalitarianism is a success.

Re: AC-ism in history?
 

The replies in this thread from the pro ACer's makes you wonder if any of them have ever read a history book.

Re: AC-ism in history?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If there was ever an AC society and it is no longer AC, there is a reason for it that can be shown to be a practical or theoretical failing of AC itself.

[/ QUOTE ]

So if Hitler had conquered us in WWII, that would have been a failure of our form of government? Interesting theory, but I don't agree.

[/ QUOTE ]

Also all those democracies that were overthrown by the US show that democracy is a failure and totalitarianism is a success.

[/ QUOTE ]

If democracies showed a consistent pattern of failing in the short term then that would invalidate democratic government, yes. The existence of multiple stable, extremely prosperous democracies with high standards of living and good human rights is essentially what validates the system.

Re: AC-ism in history?
 

[ QUOTE ]
If democracies showed a consistent pattern of failing in the short term then that would invalidate democratic government, yes. The existence of multiple stable, extremely prosperous democracies with high standards of living and good human rights is essentially what validates the system.

[/ QUOTE ]

While I agree with the overall sentiment of your post, from a purely logical standpoint you can't conclude "democracy => high standards of living and good human rights" by observing democracies with that have sufficiently high standards of living and human rights under your personal preferences. In particular, you need to build a causation case in addition to just observing correlation.

Furthermore, many supporters of anarchocapitalism believe that freeing a society of government intervention would aid in establishing higher overall standards of living and greater respect of human rights (in particular property rights). The goal is not necessarily to strive to achieve some arbritrary level of social "quality" that is not being achieved now. As an analogy, suppose I take $50 out of your wallet every morning and set it on fire. Your overall quality of life may remain quite satisfactory. Does that mean you wouldn't ask me to stop?

Re: AC-ism in history?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

By putting profits above people and their rights AC-ism seems

[/ QUOTE ]

ACism doesn't do this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you sure?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, 100% certain. Anyone who thinks it does doesn't understand what AC is about.

Also, if it were true, the corporations "running our government" would be moving us towards AC and not away from it...

Re: AC-ism in history?
 

[ QUOTE ]
The replies in this thread from the pro ACer's makes you wonder if any of them have ever read a history book.

[/ QUOTE ]

The replies in this thread from the trolls makes you wonder if any of them have ever read a book.

Re: AC-ism in history?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If democracies showed a consistent pattern of failing in the short term then that would invalidate democratic government, yes. The existence of multiple stable, extremely prosperous democracies with high standards of living and good human rights is essentially what validates the system.

[/ QUOTE ]

While I agree with the overall sentiment of your post, from a purely logical standpoint you can't conclude "democracy => high standards of living and good human rights" by observing democracies with that have sufficiently high standards of living and human rights under your personal preferences. In particular, you need to build a causation case in addition to just observing correlation.

Furthermore, many supporters of anarchocapitalism believe that freeing a society of government intervention would aid in establishing higher overall standards of living and greater respect of human rights (in particular property rights). The goal is not necessarily to strive to achieve some arbritrary level of social "quality" that is not being achieved now. As an analogy, suppose I take $50 out of your wallet every morning and set it on fire. Your overall quality of life may remain quite satisfactory. Does that mean you wouldn't ask me to stop?

[/ QUOTE ]

Debatable about higher living standards, but definitelly not true about greater human rights. That's a lie and people know that. I will count just some of areas where human rights could simply not be greater: labor rights, police interventions, blackmailing, prison conditions, discriminations, criminal sentencing, respecting laws. A system which favour the rich over the poor on every single step somehow just cannot be a system of freedom. Definitelly not a system of greater human rights, but a system of mighty which leads to tyranny and oppression IMO. It's about corporations controlling peoples lives (and their rights) with no government to stop them, a freedom of exploitation. Am i wrong?

Re: AC-ism in history?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If democracies showed a consistent pattern of failing in the short term then that would invalidate democratic government, yes. The existence of multiple stable, extremely prosperous democracies with high standards of living and good human rights is essentially what validates the system.

[/ QUOTE ]

While I agree with the overall sentiment of your post, from a purely logical standpoint you can't conclude "democracy => high standards of living and good human rights" by observing democracies with that have sufficiently high standards of living and human rights under your personal preferences. In particular, you need to build a causation case in addition to just observing correlation.

Furthermore, many supporters of anarchocapitalism believe that freeing a society of government intervention would aid in establishing higher overall standards of living and greater respect of human rights (in particular property rights). The goal is not necessarily to strive to achieve some arbritrary level of social "quality" that is not being achieved now. As an analogy, suppose I take $50 out of your wallet every morning and set it on fire. Your overall quality of life may remain quite satisfactory. Does that mean you wouldn't ask me to stop?

[/ QUOTE ]

Debatable about higher living standards, but definitelly not true about greater human rights. That's a lie and people know that. I will count just some of areas where human rights could simply not be greater: labor rights, police interventions, blackmailing, prison conditions, discriminations, criminal sentencing, respecting laws. A system which favour the rich over the poor on every single step somehow just cannot be a system of freedom. Definitelly not a system of greater human rights, but a system of mighty which leads to tyranny and oppression IMO. It's about corporations controlling peoples lives (and their rights) with no government to stop them, a freedom of exploitation. Am i wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]

Laughably hideously wrong.

Re: AC-ism in history?
 

[ QUOTE ]
It's about corporations controlling peoples lives (and their rights) with no government to stop them, a freedom of exploitation. Am i wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, you are quite wrong. For starters, what is a "corporation" where there is no government to define corporations under the tax and legal system?

Further, your entire set of posts in this thread seems to be based on the following unsupported belief: "Currently, big business attempts to control every aspect of my life and oppress me at every turn and the only thing stopping them is the government. I can't see how removing the government could result in anything other than more oppression by big business." Since anyone who believes in ACism will wholely reject this basis for your arguments, you can't have a serious discussion with them about the costs and benefits of more/less government.

Re: AC-ism in history?
 

lol @ native americans being an example of acism

Re: AC-ism in history?
 

[ QUOTE ]
lol @ native americans being an example of acism

[/ QUOTE ]

?